THE GOVERNMENT REPLY TO THE ELEVENTH
REPORT FROM THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
SESSION 2009-10 HC 366




The work of the
Independent Police
Complaints Commission





Presented to Parliament
by the Secretary of State for the Home Department
by Command of Her Majesty

April 2011





Cm 8056










£6.00

---

THE GOVERNMENT REPLY TO THE ELEVENTH
REPORT FROM THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
SESSION 2009-10 HC 366




The work of the
Independent Police
Complaints Commission





Presented to Parliament
by the Secretary of State for the Home Department
by Command of Her Majesty

April 2011





Cm 8056










£6.00

---

© Crown copyright 2011
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium,
under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or e-mail:
psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain
permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Any enquiries regarding this document should be sent to us at
Home Office, Policing Powers and Protection Unit, 5th Floor Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF.

This publication is also available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk

ISBN: 9780101805629

Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

ID: 2423139 04/11 10563 19585

---

INTRODUCTION

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) published
the report of its inquiry into the work of the Independent Police Complaints
Commission (IPCC) on 7 April 2010.

The inquiry considered aspects of the IPCC’s performance, management
structure, independence, complainant focus and suggestions for further
reform of the police complaints system.

This Command Paper sets out the Government response to the conclusions
and recommendations in the Committee’s report.

The Government welcomes the contribution of the HASC to this important
area of work.

The Government is aware of the need for an effective system to deal with
complaints against persons serving with the police, the investigation of
matters involving the death or serious injury of persons who come into contact
with the police, and robust accountability mechanisms for the police.

1

---

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE’S
RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee reached a number of conclusions and highlighted
recommendations for action. In this response the conclusions and
recommendations are identified according to the paragraphs in which they
appear in the conclusion of the report.

1. In 2008–09, less than 1% of all complaints made against the Police
were directly investigated by IPCC staff and just 10% of “serious” cases
referred to the IPCC were subsequently managed by the IPCC’s own
staff. It is true to say that, 99 times out of a 100 and despite the
existence of the IPCC, the complaints procedure remains the “police
investigating the police”. (Paragraph 7)

The Government believes that most complaints are best dealt with locally,
which should lead to more speedy outcomes and with an emphasis on ‘putting
right what has gone wrong’, with the complainant’s concerns at the heart of
the response. The vast majority of the 31,259 recorded complaints in 2008/09
were dealt with at a local level by the police force concerned. The
Government agrees with the IPCC that local handling of complaints ensures a
more timely response, reduces bureaucracy and maximises opportunities for
individual learning within the force. Police and Crime Commissioners will
have a role in holding chief constables to account for the way that a force
responds to complaints about persons serving with the police or the policing
service provided.

The Government has introduced measures in the Police Reform and Social
Responsibility Bill which will provide police forces with greater flexibility in the
handling of complaints, although more serious complaints will still need to be
referred to the IPCC. These measures will also include the widening of the
definition of a complaint to include complaints against service failure as well
as individual conduct. This will ensure that there will be more of a ‘customer
focus’ rather than on processes which leave complainants dissatisfied when
individual misconduct is not substantiated but the service provided by the
police has been lacking.

The IPCC’s remit is not restricted to the handling of complaints and appeals. It
also includes:

• allegations
of
misconduct/criminality
by a person serving with the police
(conduct matters); and
• deaths and serious injury matters following contact with the police
(‘DSI’ matters).

There has been a particular need for the IPCC to focus resources on cases
where Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be
engaged. Developing case law in this area has required greater independent
inquiry into such matters.
2

---

The Police Reform Act 2002 also sets out various ways in which any of the
matters within the IPCC’s remit can be dealt with, namely:-

• independent investigations by the IPCC;
• investigations managed by the IPCC using police resources;
• a police investigation supervised by the IPCC;
• a local police investigation;
• resolution of a complaint at local level (Local Resolution).

The Police Reform Act sets out mandatory criteria for the more serious
allegations to be referred to the IPCC and a requirement for the IPCC to make
a determination on how those matters should be handled. In 2009/10, 2,764
cases were referred to the IPCC, of which 106 were the subject of
independent investigation and 151, managed investigation. It was never
Parliament’s intention that the IPCC would be directly involved in more than a
small minority of the total number of complaints made each year and the
Government agrees with this approach.

2. There is currently a disconnect between what the public complain
about and the strictly limited task given to the IPCC in statute. That gap
should be filled by a force’s Professional Standards Department (PSD).
Ultimately, most complainants, whose concerns arise from poor service,
would just like an apology. The IPCC should act to ensure this is
forthcoming more often by impressing upon police PSDs the need to
investigate all complaints in a clear, open manner and from the position
of remedying poor public service. We are surprised that the IPCC has
apparently not taken a greater interest in this area and call on them to
do so. While we do not believe that legislation should be introduced to
remove the so-called “opt-out clause” which does not require individual
officers to proffer an apology for their behaviour, the IPCC should also
play a stronger role in ensuring this good practice is adopted by forces.
(Paragraph 13)

The Government believes that the IPCC has played a leading role in this area
and that this has been the major theme of their work over the last two years.
The IPCC revised Statutory Guidance, which came into effect on 1 April 2010
following extensive consultation, acts as the ‘Highway Code’ for the
complaints system. This guidance makes a number of fundamental changes,
not least by encouraging forces to focus on dealing with complainants’
concerns by putting things right quickly and simply at a local level before they
become formal complaints and introducing the concept of ‘upholding’ a
complaint even where no allegation of misconduct has been substantiated
against a person serving with the police. The guidance also includes a
specific section on ‘apologies’ which deals with the concern underlying the
Committee’s comments.

The measures introduced in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
will give Police and Crime Commissioners the power to ensure that chief
officers have responded appropriately to the handling of complaints. These
measures will also remove some of the bureaucratic processes from the
3

---

system to allow the focus to be on providing an appropriate response to
complainants and remedying poor public service.

3. The specifics of exactly why investigations take so long is largely
beyond our remit. We will therefore restrict our comments to stating that
a process lasting up to 269 working days is unsatisfactory to all
concerned and does nothing to increase anybody’s confidence in it. All
of the evidence we have received suggests that an investigation taking
this long reduces trust in the process. While we are unable to comment
on exactly how to reduce the length of investigations and so prevent
this problem occurring, we can recommend that the IPCC should do
more to mitigate its effects. While the investigation itself may be a
complex process, this does not prevent the disclosure of information to
interested parties. We strongly feel that a more open process involving,
for example, the sharing of proposed timetables of work and completion
dates, a greater explanation of how the investigation is developing and
where possible, the sharing of initial evidence such as CCTV recordings,
would increase the confidence of those using the system and remove
the doubt and uncertainty which has been reported to us far too often.
(Paragraph 20)

The Government welcomes the Committee’s recognition that some
investigations can be complex and shares the Committee’s concerns that
inappropriately lengthy investigations can damage public confidence in the
process. The Government accepts that some IPCC investigations take longer
than would otherwise be desirable to complete. There are a number of
reasons for this.

In some cases, the IPCC’s own management or consideration of a case may
be disproportionate. The IPCC have recognised this and continue to introduce
new casework processes, a consistent and accountable national management
structure, and refined investigation assessments to better manage and speed
up the process.

Some delays are outside the IPCC’s control as they rely on the co-operation
of others such as medical experts. Once the IPCC investigation is complete,
there may be sequential inquest and/or prosecution proceedings and these
take time to complete, entirely outside the control of the IPCC. The IPCC is
usually unable to publish their investigation reports until after any
criminal/coronial proceedings are complete.

The IPCC has a detailed policy on making information available during the
course of an investigation which is published on the IPCC website. The
sharing of information during the course of an investigation, however, involves
risk. Premature public disclosure might prejudice any subsequent criminal or
disciplinary proceedings. The weight that can be given to any evidence and
the conclusions that can be drawn from it changes as an investigation
progresses and new evidence produces a fuller picture. The Government is
satisfied that the IPCC is committed to providing as much information as
possible to bereaved families, complainants and interested persons as soon
4

---

as it can. Indeed there is a statutory duty in the Police Reform Act to keep
complainants and other persons informed.

4. The IPCC is not an insubstantial organisation—it has a staff of around
400 people and a budget of £35 million per annum. Despite this, it is
lacking clear benchmarks for success. We would like to know what the
Home Secretary considers an appropriate measure of the IPCC’s
performance. Broadly, is the success of the Commission to be
measured in inputs or outcomes? We also ask him to introduce clear,
statistical targets, based on, for example, complainant satisfaction, to
set an easily understandable measure of the IPCC’s performance.
(Paragraph 24)

The Government believes that the IPCC continues to carry out effectively and
efficiently the statutory duties given to it by Parliament. The public are more
confident in the complaints system and the system is more accessible. The
IPCC plays an important role in ensuring that complaints are dealt with
properly and appropriately and that officers who have committed criminal or
disciplinary matters have been held accountable.

The IPCC conducts independent public opinion surveys and these have
consistently found high levels of confidence in and awareness of the IPCC. An
annual public confidence survey is conducted. The latest survey published in
June 2010 found:

• slow but steady improvement in awareness of the IPCC to 67%;
and
• a high level of confidence in the IPCC itself – 86% of those
questioned believed the IPCC would deal with them fairly.

The Government believes that public confidence in the IPCC is an important
indication of how well it is fulfilling its remit. Detailed performance measures
for the IPCC are currently set out in its Balanced Scorecard which is publicly
available. The IPCC’s Performance Framework assesses performance
against the following specific outputs:

• confidence – increase public, complainant, police and police staff
confidence in the complaints system;
• learning – use lessons learnt to improve the complaints system and
policing;
• engagement – increase public, police and staff awareness of the
complaints system;
• proportionality – balance the timeliness, quality and cost of resolution;
and
• accountability – organisations within the system are accountable for
their performance and bring individuals to account for their conduct.

The Government believes that these measures provide the public and others
with sufficient information upon which to judge the performance of the IPCC.

5

---

5. If some Commissioners’ independence may be compromised by the
desire to be re-appointed, that would be troubling and reform of the
appointment system would be necessary. A single, longer term of
appointment would be more beneficial to independent oversight. We
note that the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland is appointed for a
single 7-year term, and consider this to be better practice. The
appointment of Commissioners and Chairman is subject to schedule 2
of the Police Reform Act 2002. We therefore recommend that the
Government amend the legislation to allow the adoption of this practice
to future Commissioner appointments, and appointments in the wider
police complaints sector generally to remove any hint of impropriety or
lack of independence. (Paragraph 28)

The Government does not share the Committee’s view that legislation should
be amended to allow for IPCC Commissioners to be appointed for a single
seven year term.

As the Committee rightly notes, the appointment of Commissioners and the
Chair is in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Police Reform Act and requires
that ordinary members and the Chair can serve for five years before having to
seek re-appointment. The re-appointment process is conducted in accordance
with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments best practice.

The Government is not persuaded that this process leads to the
independence of Commissioners being compromised. Rather, it helps ensure
that the opportunity exists to refresh the Commission as necessary.

6. While not willing to cast aspersions against individual officers who
undoubtedly bring many valuable skills to the process, the state of
affairs described by our witnesses is clearly inappropriate—ex-police
officers should not end up investigating possible ex-colleagues in their
former force. Public confidence in the impartiality of the IPCC is bound
to be damaged by these practices. We are shocked that this situation
has been allowed to develop and recommend that steps are taken to
prevent this occurring and to remove any hint of impropriety.
(Paragraph 31)

The IPCC is an independent body and is responsible for the selection and
recruitment of its staff, including investigators. Approximately 30% of IPCC
investigators and 11% of IPCC staff overall come from a police background.
The remainder of staff come from a diverse range of backgrounds. Former
police officers and other staff with investigative experience bring with them a
wealth of professional expertise which is required for the IPCC to carry out
competent and robust investigations.

The Government has reassurance from the IPCC that there are no
circumstances in which an IPCC investigator, with a police background, can
investigate a former colleague with whom they worked. The Commissioners
are responsible for ensuring there are no conflicts of interest in the
deployment of IPCC investigators.
6

---

The IPCC believe that the skills and professionalism of former police officers
offer benefits to their work and that the quality of the work, which consistently
stands up to rigorous public examination in inquests and criminal trials, is
testament to the value of recruiting such former officers.

7. Some complainants were convinced that the IPCC sided wholly with
the police in their investigations. Individual police officers are equally
unsure of the merits of the Commission’s methods. It is disappointing
that both complainants and individual police officers feel so alienated by
the investigations process. Whether or not the IPCC is failing in its duty
of objectivity and impartiality, it is clearly failing to convey such
qualities to many of its users. (Paragraphs 33 and 35)

The Government recognises that the IPCC works in an adversarial
environment where there may be conflicting accounts and views. The
Government believes that the focus should be on a search for the truth based
on careful analysis of the facts in each case.

The Government and the IPCC acknowledge that there will be families and
complainants who cannot accept the conclusions of some IPCC
investigations. By the same token, there will be police officers whose
perceptions of events will differ from the conclusions reached by an IPCC
investigation. Outcomes of all IPCC investigations are made public and the
most serious cases investigated by the IPCC will often conclude with being
considered by a jury in a criminal trial or an inquest. This ensures that all
parties have access to information and can draw their own conclusions. The
IPCC has received consistent endorsement of their investigations when
considered impartially in this way.


8. The IPCC’s statutory remit is to “increase public confidence in the
police complaints system”. While certain statistics indicate that the
IPCC has been successful in respect of the general public, it is also
clear that the Commission has not inspired confidence and trust in
those it has dealt with. We have received complaints of insensitive
communication, inconsistency of approach and a lack of empathy with
those involved with the investigation. The Commission must remember
that it is handling stressful, controversial cases, and to do so in a
distant and non-empathetic manner only harms the reputation of the
wider complaints system and does not satisfy anyone involved that
justice has been done. If the IPCC is to achieve its aim of increasing
confidence in the police complaints system a much more complainant-
centred approach is needed. This will require a radical change of
mindset within the organisation (Paragraph 37)

The Government is acutely aware of the often dreadful events and personal
tragedies that bring people into contact with the complaints system and the
IPCC. The Government also recognises that all efforts must be made to
ensure that communication with complainants, bereaved families and
police/staff affected are sensitive to their needs. The Government recognises
7

---

Document Outline

• INTRODUCTION
• GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS

---